

CHAIR: Carol A. Lewis, Professor, Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University, Houston
VICE CHAIR: Leslie S. Richards, General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Victoria Sheehan, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
Michael F. Ableson, CEO, Arrival Automotive–North America, Detroit, MI
James F. Albaugh, President and CEO, The Boeing Company (retired), Scottsdale, AZ
Carlos M. Braceras, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City
Douglas C. Ceva, Vice President, Customer Lead Solutions, Prologis, Inc., Jupiter, FL
Nancy Daubenberger, Commissioner of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul
Marie Therese Dominguez, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany
Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag University Professor of Engineering Emeritus, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Randell Iwasaki, President and CEO, Iwasaki Consulting Services, Walnut Creek, CA
Ashby Johnson, Executive Director, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Austin, TX
Joel M. Jundt, Secretary of Transportation, South Dakota Department of Transportation, Pierre
Hani S. Mahmassani, W.A. Patterson Distinguished Chair in Transportation; Director, Transportation Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Scott C. Marler, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames
Ricardo Martinez, Adjunct Professor of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Decatur, GA
Michael R. McClellan, Vice President, Strategic Planning, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA
Russell McMurry, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta
Craig E. Philip, Research Professor and Director, VECTOR, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Steward T.A. Pickett, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY
Susan A. Shaheen, Professor and Co-director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley
Marc Williams, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin
Michael R. Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Sustainable Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Amit Bose, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC
Tristan Brown, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Steven Cliff, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Rand Ghayad, Senior Vice President, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Germantown, MD
William H. Graham, Jr. (Major General, U.S. Army), Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Robert C. Hampshire, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Sue Lawless, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Niloo Parvashtiani, Engineer, Mobility Consultant Solutions, Iteris Inc., Fairfax, VA, and Chair, TRB Young Members Coordinating Council
Sophie Shulman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Polly Trottenberg, Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Jim Tymon, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Veronica Vanterpool, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC
___________________
* Membership as of May 2024.
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCHP ROGRAM
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1116
Chiara Silvestri Dobrovolny
Sun Hee Park
Shawn Turner
Roger Bligh
James Kovar
TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
College Station, TX
Subscriber Categories
Pedestrians and Bicyclists • Design • Safety and Human Factors
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs.
Project 22-37
ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
ISBN 978-0-309-71000-8
Library of Congress Control Number 2024942429
© 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications.
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
are available from
National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360
Washington, DC 20001
(800) 624-6242
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
https://nap.nationalacademies.org
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
Monique R. Evans, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Ann M. Hartell, Senior Program Officer
Arefeh Nasri, Senior Program Officer
Stephanie L. Campbell-Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
Janet M. McNaughton, Senior Editor
Howard R. Ressel, Popli Design Group, Rochester, NY (Chair)
Tracy Borchardt, AECOM, Spotsylvania, VA
Amber Dallman, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN
Donna J. Hardy, West Virginia Department of Transportation, Charleston, WV
Gevin J. McDaniel, SpanPath, LLC, Tallahassee, FL
Sonia Alicia Mercado, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX
Margaret R. Robertson, Environmental Access Committee AER, Sparks, NV
William B. Wilson, Wyoming Department of Transportation, Cheyenne, WY
Eduardo Arispe, FHWA Liaison
Kelly K. Hardy, AASHTO Liaison
Nelson H. Gibson, TRB Liaison

By Ann M. Hartell
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
NCHRP Research Report 1116: Development of a MASH Barrier to Shield Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Other Vulnerable Users from Motor Vehicles provides a detailed design for a crashworthy roadside barrier system for use alongside high-speed roadways that also addresses the needs of nonmotorized users of adjacent multiuse facilities. The report and accompanying resources will be of interest to highway designers seeking a design solution for locations where nonmotorized transportation facilities are adjacent to high-speed roadways.
As the number of pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of other active transportation modes continues to grow in the United States, state departments of transportation and other transportation agencies are seeking to improve how these users are accommodated on or adjacent to our nation’s roadways. In many locations, limited lateral offsets between the motor vehicle travel lanes and the sidewalks or multiuse paths can reduce actual and perceived safety for these vulnerable users. When the available right-of-way constrains the ability to increase offset distance, an alternative can be to install a positive protection device—a barrier that separates lanes for motorized vehicles and facilities for nonmotorized users.
Traditionally, barriers are designed for a specific need such as shielding motorists from a steep slope or a fixed object, such as a pole or tree. The selection of a barrier is driven by roadway design speed, traffic volume, clear zones, aesthetics, and accommodation of driveways and other access points, snow plowing, and stormwater runoff. However, the use of barriers to separate pedestrians and bicycles from motor vehicles requires the consideration of additional factors. For example, a typical guardrail is designed to redirect motor vehicles but may not be tall enough to protect pedestrians or bicyclists by preventing them from inadvertently encroaching on the roadway. Guardrail designs may have bolts or other features that can snag a wheelchair or bicyclist. A barrier that has gaps between posts may be difficult for people with limited vision to detect with a cane or other mobility device. When struck by a motor vehicle, a barrier may deflect into the path of a nonmotorized user on the adjacent facility.
Under NCHRP Project 22-37, “Development of a MASH Barrier to Shield Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Other Vulnerable Users from Motor Vehicles,” the Texas A&M Transportation Institute was tasked with reviewing existing barrier designs and policies related to safety barriers that separate nonmotorized users from motor vehicles. From this review, design requirements for a new barrier were identified. A preferred design was selected for detailed development and was assessed for impact performance by using finite element computer impact simulations. Finally, a full-scale installation of a refined barrier design was constructed and tested for crashworthiness in accordance with Test Level 3 (TL-3) of the Manual
for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). The barrier was also assessed for comfort and acceptability for people who use wheelchairs, people with limited vision who use canes as a mobility device, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Separate computer simulations and full-scale crash tests were also conducted to assess the crashworthiness of a Thrie beam transition to connect the new barrier to a typical W-beam guardrail.
NCHRP Research Report 1116 presents a nonproprietary, crashworthy design for use in separating vulnerable users from motor vehicle travel lanes that is
The report includes detailed drawings of the barrier and the transition designs to provide designers with a barrier system that is ready for implementation. Accompanying the report are a set of presentation slides summarizing the project, a memorandum describing activities to promote the adoption and implementation of the new system, a video of all full-scale tests, and 10 appendices provided in two files:
All of these materials can be found on the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org) by searching for NCHRP Research Report 1116: Development of a MASH Barrier to Shield Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Other Vulnerable Users from Motor Vehicles and looking under “Resources.”

Review of Crashworthy Roadside Barriers and Railings
Review of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facility Guidelines
Review of Use of Vegetation Control
Review of MASH Testing Standards
Chapter 4 Preliminary Design Options
Design of Multifunctional Barrier Components
Option A: Steel-Only Open Rail System with Longitudinal HSS
Option B: Steel-Only Open Rail System with Longitudinal HSS and Metal Mesh
Option C: W-Beam Guardrail System with Rails
Option D: W-Beam Guardrail System with Metal Mesh
Option E: Steel-Only Open Rail System with Covering HSS Top Rail
Option F: Steel-Only Open Rail System with Covering HSS Top Rail and Metal Mesh
Design Recommendation and Modification
Chapter 5 Finite Element Computer Modeling and Calibration
Validation of the Mow Strip Model
Validation of the Multifunctional Barrier Model
Chapter 6 Finite Element Analysis for Barrier System Design Option
Predictive Simulations with LS-DYNA for MASH Test 3-11 on Developed Barrier Models
Predictive Simulations with LS-DYNA for MASH Test 3-10 on Developed Barrier Models
Predictive Simulations for MASH Tests 3-10 and 3-11 on Barrier Models with 66-in. Post Spacing
Chapter 7 System Details for MASH 3-10 and 3-11 Tests
Test Article and Installation Details
Design Modifications During Tests
Chapter 8 Test Requirements and Evaluation Criteria for MASH 3-10 and 3-11 Tests
Vehicle Tow and Guidance System
Chapter 10 MASH Test 3-10 (Crash Test 612541-01-2)
Test Designation and Actual Impact Conditions
Chapter 11 MASH Test 3-11 (Crash Test 612541-01-1)
Test Designation and Actual Impact Conditions
Chapter 12 Finite Element Analysis for Preliminary Transition Designs Utilizing W-Beam and Rub Rail
Predictive Finite Element Analysis of Crashworthiness of the Preliminary W-Beam Transition System
Chapter 13 Finite Element Analysis for Final Thrie Beam Transition System
Transition Design with Thrie Beam
Chapter 14 System Details for MASH Tests 3-20 and 3-21
Test Article and Installation Details
Design Modifications During Tests
Chapter 15 Test Requirements and Evaluation Criteria for MASH Tests 3-20 and 3-21
Chapter 16 MASH Test 3-20 (Crash Test 612541-01-4)
Test Designation and Actual Impact Conditions
Chapter 17 MASH Test 3-21 (Crash Test 612541-01-3)
Test Designation and Actual Impact Conditions
Chapter 18 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Suggested Research
This page intentionally left blank.